J. Kerrey

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to confirm the President's nominee, George J. Tenet, to be Director of Central Intelligence. He served as Deputy Director from May 1995 until January of this year, he has served as acting Director since that time, and he has already proven to be a highly competent, knowledgeable, capable leader of our Intelligence Community. As many of my colleagues know, Mr. Tenet's nomination has been before the Intelligence Committee since April. In hearings and in written responses for the record, Mr. Tenet answered all the committee's questions to the Committee's satisfaction. My sense is Mr. Tenet has enjoyed the unanimous support of the Committee since April. However, the Committee chose not to report this nomination to the Senate until completion of an investigation of Mr. Tenet by the Attorney General under the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 1994. The investigation was initiated April 23, 1997, and the completed report of investigation was filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on July 7, 1997. The Committee has been informed that the Attorney General ``determined that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that further investigation is warranted. She is not seeking the appointment of an independent counsel.'' Having received this report, the Committee voted today to favorably report the nomination. The vote was unanimous. The Attorney General's investigation was triggered by anomalies in Mr. Tenet's financial reporting statement and biographical questionnaire. In my view these were minor and fully explicable anomalies. Given the high standards set in the Independent Counsel Act, the fact that the investigation has been closed without the appointment of an independent counsel suggests to me that the Attorney General shares my assessment did nothing wrong. The necessity for the investigation created an unfortunate delay, as well as a burden for Mr. Tenet and members of his family. The delay caused by the investigation did not, from what I have seen, create a vacuum in leadership at the CIA. Even as the Acting Director, Mr. Tenet has provided steady direction to the Intelligence Community. Nonetheless, there is no substitute in government for the authority that comes with Senate confirmation, so I am most pleased the nomination can move forward and Mr. Tenet can be fully empowered. As Chairman Shelby and I told our colleagues during the recent debate on the Intelligence Authorization bill, the end of the Cold War did by no means mark a diminution in the importance of intelligence to our national security. Sound policy and sound strategy are illuminated by sound intelligence, by the sometimes small amount of secret information that gives full meaning to the masses of freely available information. As technology continues in its revolutionary cycles, victory in war is more than ever the result of the linkage of American valor with American intelligence and American precision weapons. So intelligence continues to be essential to our survival and our ability to lead in the world. One of Mr. Tenet's many tasks will be to convince the public that intelligence still matters, and that the public can count on the integrity, patriotism, and morality of those who serve the nation in the Intelligence Community. Mr. Tenet is well suited for this task--he is a highly effective communicator. Another task for Mr. Tenet will be to lead those who are serving. The CIA and the other intelligence agencies include people who take risks for our country, as well as some of the smartest and most skilled analysts, scientists, and technicians in the country. They deserve leadership that fully challenges their talents, rewards their successes, maintains an environment of high integrity, enforces accountability, and adds to their pride in their profession. They also deserve leadership that will remain with them long enough to really make a difference. I believe George Tenet will provide that leadership, and I urge his confirmation.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I, too, rise to support the amendment that will be offered shortly by the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts [Senator Kerry]. First of all, we must, here in this Senate, be alert to the risk to lives of Americans in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. That is the first order of business of this resolution. We have lives at risk there. An Ambassador and his family's lives are at risk. Second, though, what we are saying here is, now is not the time to quit in Cambodia. For all the reasons cited by Senator McCain of Arizona, all the reasons that he has cited about the terrible suffering that has gone on in Cambodia for the last 30 years, in addition to that, we have a toehold of democracy there. The rule of law is at stake. An agreement was signed in Paris in 1991, and an election with 90 percent of the population voting in 1993, we have a great success possible in Cambodia, and now is not the time for us to say, ``Well, it's Cambodia, it's a long ways away, it is not important.'' It is important. America needs to go to the Security Council of the United Nations and say that we want to consider all options to make certain that the rule of law and democracy survive inside Cambodia. We need to do the same thing with our allies in ASEAN to make certain that the rule of law and democracy survive. We need to send with this resolution a strong message to the people of Cambodia that we are not going to back out, we are not going to walk away, we are not going to give up, that we believe that democracy can survive in Cambodia, that the rule of law can be preserved in Cambodia and that the United States of America is prepared to lead the international community in ensuring that effort. We have come a long ways in Cambodia. Only in the U.S. Congress is it possible for us to say we want to change something in the world and then take action and have it happen. That is what happened in Cambodia with this agreement at a time in 1991 when almost nobody thought it was possible, and then the election in 1993 that even fewer thought was possible. There is a lot at stake here for the United States of America. As we talk to China about democracy, we do not want them to say, ``Look what happened in Cambodia,'' or Vietnam similarly. We are a Nation that has been successful because we have been a defender of democracy and the rule of law, and we have to defend that principle inside the nation of Cambodia. I am pleased to join with the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts [Senator Kerry], and others who are cosponsoring this resolution. It is a terribly important resolution, and I am hopeful and believe, in fact, that the administration will take it seriously and will act upon it. I yield the floor. Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Grams second-degree amendment. Today, America leads the world in the development and production of high performance computers and our commercial interests in promoting exports of these machines is strong. To restrict the export of computers at the level set by the Cochran amendment would unnecessarily hurt our companies without promoting our national security. I, like all other Senators, am concerned about how the export of advanced technology affects our national security. Recent press stories have made it all too clear that potential adversaries wish to acquire American technology to assist their military efforts. In addressing this issue, however, policymakers must strike a balance between the interests of American companies and what is required to ensure our national security. This is never an easy task and is made more difficult with the rapid ace of development in the computer industry. We need to be diligent in our efforts to try and match our policies to what is occurring in that industry. Supercomputers are integral to the development of advanced weapons development. Therefore, our policy which restricts the export of the most powerful computers is necessary and warranted. However, the performance level of the computers that the Cochran amendment seeks to control does not reach the extreme speeds of true supercomputers. The Cochran amendment imposes controls on computers operating at 2,000 to 7,000 million theoretical operations per second [MTOPS]. Today, a computer that operates at 2,000 MTOPS is considered a mid- level workstation. The next generation of chips may allow Senators to have machines capable of that speed on their own desks by the end of next year. High performance computers start at 10,000 MTOPS and go up to 1,000,000 MTOPS. Supercomputers are machines that operate above 20,000 MTOPS and require validated export licenses under the current policy. In 1995, an extensive Government review of computer technology determined that critical defense applications required machines that operated above the 7,000 MTOPS level. Further, it was determined that machines that operate below the 7,000 MTOPS level would soon become widely available from foreign suppliers. The administration then proposed its current policy, which has strong restrictions on the sale of computers that operate above the 7,000 MTOPS and lesser restrictions on machines that operate below that level. This decision was reviewed and approved by the Defense Department, the State Department, ACDA, and the intelligence agencies. Information gathered by our intelligence community since that decision was made support keeping the export policy in its current form. Today, companies in Germany, Italy, France, India, Japan, and Poland are selling computers that operate in the 2,000 to 7,000 MTOPS level. And the performance level of the computers foreign companies produce continues to grow. Even if availability of these machines were a legitimate risk to national security, which it is not, restrictions on American companies seeking to export computers in this range would have little or no effect on the ability of foreign militaries to acquire this technology. Further, simply placing license requirements on the sale of these computers would place American companies at an unfair disadvantage. We all know that sales of technology or any commodity depend on the speed of delivery. Foreign customers will not wait a week for an American company to receive a license if another vendor can deliver the same quality machine tomorrow. Critics of the current policy believe its implementation has allowed computers to be diverted to illegitimate end users. The Commerce Department has not informed companies what foreign customers should or should not receive this type of computers and places the burden on the companies to acquire this information. However, how well a policy is implemented does not necessarily reflect on the prudence of the policy. If there have been problems in how our current export policy is implemented, recent changes made by the administration and measures imposed by the Grams amendment should help fix them. I agree with Senator Grams that we should continue to evaluate our computer export policy and how foreign availability affects U.S. exports. We should also make it easier for companies to know which foreign companies, militaries, and nuclear end users should not receive our technology. I believe the current policy has been set at a level which both promotes American commercial interests and helps protect our national security. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Grams amendment.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise to comment on one of the most important authorization bills to be debated by the Senate each year, the defense authorization bill. In fact, if you consider that the first duty of government is to assure the life and freedom of its people, then this is the most important authorization bill we will take up this year. Our debate, like most of what we do on this floor, will eventually produce a law. In our democracy, Mr. President, law is really our collective national imagining of how something should be. In this debate, America imagines its Armed Forces and crafts a law that authorizes their existence and shapes them to their tasks. This law has global reach and global consequences; so we should approach this debate with seriousness, with respect for those who serve, and respect toward those who wrestle with these issues on a daily basis. Deserving respect in the latter category are our colleagues who serve on the Armed Services Committee. They have produced a good bill, on balance, and they have done an exceptionally difficult task in putting together this legislation because they have to consider not only the threats to the Nation and the nonnegotiable requirements to repel those threats today, but also to support the force that is already deployed, as they are in Bosnia. They also face tough budget limitations, along with the demands of competing bureaucracies and those in the private sector who supply equipment and services for defense. Our colleagues on the Armed Services Committee must balance near-term with long-term, readiness with research, and through it all keep their eyes focused on the overall good of protecting the Nation. Mr. President, I thank them for taking on this tough task and producing such a good product. I especially thank the distinguished Senator from South Carolina and the distinguished Senator from Michigan for their fine work on this legislation. National strategy should be the basis for our consideration of the Defense authorization, and strategy is illuminated by history. We have a history, in the aftermath of decisive military involvement overseas, of withdrawing from foreign commitments. The surest sign of our withdrawal has always been the deep reduction of our Armed Forces. After World War I, we listened to our isolationist instincts, refused to join the League of Nations which our own President had created, and cut our military to the bare bones. Absent our leadership, Europe and Asia developed into a conflict which killed 50 million people--a conflict which only renewed American engagement could win. Again, after World War II, we deeply cut our military, only to be shocked into rearmament by the initial victories of Communist forces in Korea-- forces which might well have been deterred had we kept our forces capable. Again, after Vietnam we deeply cut our forces but fortunately rebuilt them when it became clear that our military was less capable than our national strategy required. We wisely rearmed and created a force which outlasted the Soviet Union and won a historic victory in the cold war. The clear lessons of history are: Stay engaged in the world and keep our Armed Forces congruent with the national strategy and with the threats we face. In other words, we should not withdraw from the world--we should continue to lead, and an essential component of leadership is Armed Forces who can do what our strategy requires. Keeping those forces capable means sizing and shaping and equipping them to deal with the threats of today and tomorrow, changing and improving them so they can achieve their purpose. Our forces have an overriding purpose: To defend the Nation. But they also have subsidiary purposes: To defend our national interests and to support the stability which shields prosperity and democracy. We Americans also expect our military to do more than just national defense. We expect them to maintain and embody our national leadership. We expect them to be the agent of America's desire to lead a response to anarchy or famine or other instances in which American values call for action. These are the American values the world loves and depends on, and our military delivers on them. No other country on Earth has such a set of purposes for its armed forces, and no other country has the multifaceted, action-oriented, take-charge people in its military who can accomplish any or all of these purposes and think outside the box to do it better. Developing and nurturing such people is yet another essential task of our Armed Forces. The military that can answer the tall orders we place it cannot be a static institution, and our is not. It is not a status quo force. Some fail to see it, but in fact the U.S. military has become significantly smaller since the cold war. In 1990, there were 2,069,000 active duty service members. This bill authorizes 1,431,000 for fiscal year 1998. In 1990, there were 18 active Army divisions and 10 divisions in the Army National Guard. This bill authorizes 10 and 8 divisions, respectively, for fiscal year 1998. The number of Navy aircraft carriers has gone from 15--and 1 for training--to 22 and 1. Battle force ships have gone from 546 to 346. Air Force fighter wings have gone from 24 active and 12 reserve to 13 active and 7 reserve. My point is not to argue with these reductions, which made sense in terms of the threats and our commitments, but to note they occurred, and also to note they have been traumatic, not just for the communities in which they are located, but also for the services themselves. Let me add parenthetically, whatever the size of our forces, they should be supported by logistics and infrastructure that reflects their size. If our forces get smaller, we should not retain unneeded military basis. I, therefore, support the distinguished ranking member's amendment to initiate a new base closure process. The money we can save on excess bases is a matter for debate, but excess bases hurt readiness regardless of money because they add requirements for our most precious resource: personnel. Too much of what passes for strategic decisionmaking in defense these days is really about money. In my view, money is an issue only after you decide on a strategy and the military component of the strategy. The lesson of the cold war is, if we need something military to protect our country and achieve our strategic goal, we will pay for it, whatever the cost. In examining this bill and our strategic direction, saving money is not my highest priority. In fact, I don't think we spend too much on defense, given our global responsibilities and the size of our economy. My question is whether we are spending it on the right things. We can answer it by reviewing the threats we are facing and will face in the future. The top threat, the only threat that can instantly extinguish our national life and the lives of scores of millions of our citizens, is Russian nuclear weapons. The mission of U.S. Strategic Command is as essential as ever. It is the fashion to consign the cold war to the historic past, and Russia today is a friendly country. Indeed, the growth of prosperity and democracy in a friendly, peaceful Russia ought to be at the top of our strategic priorities--the potential for such a Russia is one of the principal fruits of the cold war. Conversely, a poor, unstable, chaotic Russia threatens our security because the command and control of nuclear weapons could be weakened. The likelihood of accidental launch or leakage of fissile materials into the hands of criminals or terrorists is increased. No aspect of the proliferation problem is more potentially threatening than the possibility that Russian fissile materials get into the wrong hands. The Armed Services Committee has understood the connection between Russian nuclear surety and our own national security. The Nunn-Lugar programs are proof of that understanding and the strategic vision of those two statesmen and many of their colleagues. The cuts made in those programs in this bill suggest we may have briefly lost sight of that vision, and I will join with the Senator from Michigan in seeking to restore the requested levels. Russian nuclear weapons are an inescapable, obvious part of our strategic reality. We also face a serious threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to rogue States, countries like Iraq, Iran, Libya, and North Korea. One appropriate response to the threat from these countries, when the threat matures and becomes specific, is missile defense. But there are other responses that should not wait, including advanced research and development on the detection and targeting of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. Our global responsibilities could propel us with little warning into a conflict in which these weapons, the so-called poor man's nuclear weapons, are present, just as we now know they were during the gulf war. A third threat is the conventional capabilities of potentially hostile states, and analysis suggests to me these capabilities are in broad decline around the world, just as are the conventional capabilities of many allies. Most countries can stage a decent military parade. But there are few who can sustain ground combat operations or an air campaign lasting more than a few days. Recent history, and I am thinking especially of the performance of non-United States NATO forces in the earlier UNPROFOR stage of Bosnia, shows there are not many armies willing to even engage in ground combat unless United States troops are in action alongside them. Likewise, the Russian invasion of Chechnya several years ago seemed to me to be a repeated instance of Russian troops who would not leave the safety of their armored vehicles and their artillery positions to fight on the ground. The Russians blew up a lot of things from a distance but they did not win the war. I am most grateful American soldiers and marines still have the warrior spirit and have it in abundance, but I think we should recognize that this spirit, at least at this time in history, is far from universal. There are many armed people in the world who are willing to fight, but not generally on behalf of governments. The foreigners who are eager for a fight are likelier to be with Hizbollah or the PKK than with an established government. This reality, which may be only a temporary condition, should be reflected in how we shape our forces. We may be overstressing the likelihood of conventional conflict and understressing the unconventional, although the latter may be more likely. Let me add that unconventional operations have not been our forte, historically. As the nation-state declines in many regions and dissolves altogether in some parts of Africa, the potential for unconventional operations by U.S. forces grows larger. Conventional naval threats also appear to be in decline. Certainly there are no naval forces in the world remotely close to ours in either size or capability. The Russian Navy is experiencing severe problems just in paying and feeding its sailors, much less getting underway. At least temporarily, we may have the world's last real navy. But the gradual emergence of the navies of developing powers like China and India present a more distant threat that bears watching. At the other end of the spectrum, unconventional and shore-based attacks on our warships are already a threat to our forces which, as in the Persian Gulf, must come close to hostile coasts to maintain regional stability. Our global responsibilities, in the opinion of the administration, require us to be prepared to fight simultaneously in two major regional contingencies. Looking at the situation in North Korea, a regime which was described to the Intelligence Committee in open session earlier this year by Lt. Gen. Pat Hughes, the Director of Defense Intelligence, as ``terminal,'' I respectfully disagree with the two MRC assumption. I think the likeliest near term possibility is for a combination of one major and several minor simultaneous contingencies which could be inconveniently located in terms of our logistics structure. In my view, the soundest investment we could make is more airlift so we can rapidly force a favorable outcome in these contingencies, and better sealift to sustain them. As we take on new international responsibilities our military should be appropriately tasked and shaped to carry them out. I note the Senate will soon consider the expansion of NATO. Our most significant new responsibility from this policy decision will be to be prepared to defend the eastern border of Poland. That is the guarantee we will make. It will not be a meaningful guarantee unless U.S. military forces are dedicated for this mission and train for it, and for all the logistic support which will also be required. I have yet to learn how this commitment, if we make it, will affect our force structure and what it will cost. Every human environment is a potential military target or theater of conflict, and that includes the new environment of cyberspace, an environment which is essential to our national security and yet is an environment without international borders or government controls. If we are to defend our communications systems, our transportation systems, our power transmission systems, our medical care delivery systems, we must defend our national information environment, our public networks. Robust encryption is an essential part of the defense of this environment as well as its assured, secure use by consumers, the private sector, and Government. The Secure Public Networks Act, which Senator McCain and I and others have introduced, aims to make set a global as well as a national standard for secure public networks. Our bill serves national defense as well as our commercial interest, and I commend it to my colleagues. Mr. President, as the threats and the environments change, it is our duty, as well as that of the administration, to ask ourselves if our forces are designed and equipped in the light of today's and tomorrow's reality. What is the likelihood that our Army will have to conduct large-scale armored operations against an enemy like the Iraqis of 1991? Is the aircraft carrier the optimum fire support or air supremacy system in areas where we are denied access to airfields? What is the likelihood of a major amphibious assault in today's world, or a mass tactical parachute jump? What are the tactics and platforms best suited to achieve rapid, overwhelming victory today and tomorrow? We have in our military officers who can answer these and many other questions essential to formulating the future of our forces. Our military education system trains officers to think outside the box. Will their political masters in the Pentagon and White House let them? Are we in Congress open to real change or does it present political risk to us that we would rather not face? In the past, we have only made major positive changes in our military under the pressure of external threats. Now we have the opportunity to do it for ourselves. The seriousness of the tasks we assign to our military, and the quality and spirit of those who serve and who are willing--even enthusiastic--about going into danger for the rest of us, demand no less. Again, Mr. President, I commend both the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the distinguished senior Senator from South Carolina, and the Senator from Michigan, the ranking member of this committee, for their very constructive and important work. They have produced a good piece of legislation. There are some changes that I would like to make with their support, especially of the ranking member. But overall they have kept the faith with the people of this Nation and produced a piece of legislation that, if enacted, will enable the United States of America to continue to be safe and secure. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I will take 30 seconds and then yield to the Senator from Iowa. This provision has worked and is creating jobs--

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I would like to join my colleagues in highlighting the importance of farmer-owned coops in the production of ethanol, and thank the Senator from Minnesota for his continued leadership on this issue. In Nebraska, two of the six ethanol production facilities are owned by farmer-owned cooperatives. These plants account for approximately one-third of the total amount of ethanol produced in my State and directly employ over 300 Nebraskans. By restructuring the small blenders credit, I am hopeful that not only would we help the existing ethanol plants in Nebraska, but that we would encourage other farmer-owned cooperatives to examine the opportunities for rural economic development provided by ethanol production.

Mr. KERREY. This provision has worked. I urge my colleagues to vote against the motion to strike. It has created jobs and has been good for the environment and promoted alternative fuel in the agriculture community, and we have long-term contracts that individuals have taken out to build the plants. I hope my colleagues vote against this provision.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, this provision would change American families with children, and it will generate more wealth. It is good for American families. We have been talking about it. In addition to the child tax credit, there are a number of us--Republicans and Democrats--talking about ways to make this tax credit a vehicle for generating wealth for the last few years. It is a good provision. I hope my colleagues will vote against the motion to strike.

Mr. KERREY. I am not in opposition, but with the 2-percent provision stricken, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor to this amendment.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. This proposal began in 1995. I heard the Senator from Texas describe it as a sacred part of the Contract With America. In 1995, Senator Lieberman and I introduced KIDSAVE as a modification to this $500 per child tax credit, and it set up a savings account for children. It was mandatory. The idea was that Americans are not saving enough money, they are struggling to put aside savings, and that is especially revealed when you look at one of the most important parts of this tax proposal, which is the reduction of tax on estates. Mr. President, about 1 percent or 2 percent of Americans have estates over $600,000. It is a provision that affects a relatively small number of Americans. I appreciate my colleagues on the other side of the aisle saying that is one of their top concerns, that 1 percent or 2 percent of Americans who have estates over $600,000. KIDSAVE is put together as a consequence of our concern for the 98 percent of Americans that do not. The only way that you will be able, particularly for middle-income people, to acquire that wealth is to save a little bit of money over a long period of time. So I say we are not breaking any deal. We introduced this bill in 1995. It was endorsed at the time by the Heritage Foundation. The only thing that is going on here, in my judgment, is the Christian Coalition is arguing that this is a violation of something they want. So they are rallying the troops and trying to get it changed. I appreciate the Senator from Texas does not like the proposal, but it was introduced in 1995, and its purpose is to help Americans generate wealth. We know we cannot redistribute wealth. We are trying to enable Americans to create wealth by saving their money. The $500 child tax credit goes from 0 to 17. That is the law. It ends at age 17. I would have preferred 0 to 4, frankly, for this thing to go into effect. It was a compromise. We agreed to do this as a consequence of the desire to increase the amount of money that Americans have, not only for education but this money, particularly for those that are not going to school, would be better off staying in a savings account until retirement so those individuals can look to their retirement and say in addition to having Social Security there for them they will have a source of wealth. So in my view, this is an amendment that would deny Americans the opportunity to acquire wealth. I think it is a very important provision in this Tax Code. I hope my colleagues will vote against the Gramm motion to strike.

Mr. KERREY. No. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would like the Senator to be a little more specific. He said, ``I have a number of colleagues.''

Mr. KERREY. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. KERREY. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, there is language in the bill that imposes what has been imposed typically in the appropriations process, permanently imposing a restriction on the use of Federal money for payment for abortions. I know it is very controversial, a lot of fun to debate. But by putting it in permanent law, we are doing something entirely different than has been done before. Second, I would say to my colleagues, this affects only low-income teenagers. That is basically what we are doing, saying to low-income teenagers that we are not going to allow taxpayer money to be used for abortions. Third, I would say, for those who say, ``Well, that's right, we don't want to use taxpayer money for abortions,'' we do not have a similar restriction on our salaries, we do not have a similar restriction on any other Federal employee's salary. If we have income coming to us, that is taxpayer income. If you want to be consistent here, you want to say you are going to treat low-income teenagers the same as our teenagers are treated, then you would have to put restrictions on how we can spend our salaries as well. I hope that this amendment will pass and we will strike this language. If you want to bring the Hyde amendment up, I think it is much more appropriate to do so not on appropriations bills.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify my originally filed amendment since the managers' amendment changes the language that my amendment seeks to strike.

Mr. KERREY. Yes.

Mr. KERREY. That is close enough. There was actually a modification that requires me to wait before I offer my amendment. Otherwise I will have to offer it twice.

Mr. KERREY. I still have my amendment.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. This amendment deals with FCC auctions of spectrum. They had an action about a month ago where they auctioned off spectrum for about a dollar. Some of these spectrums went for that. This amendment establishes that the FCC shall have a floor, and the suggestion was that we modify it. I ask unanimous consent that this amendment be modified to allow the FCC to establish a floor, unless it is in the national interest not to.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Another 30 seconds? I can't say hello in 30 seconds. This proposal has been around--adjusting by income the part B premium has been around a long time. I know I was asked about it when I campaigned in 1988. This is not a new proposal. It has been argued. It has been vented. It has been discussed. It is reasonable. It is fair. And I hope my colleagues will oppose the Kennedy effort to strike.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the point of order that has been raised against this provision. Raising the eligibility age from 65 to 67 is fair. Raising it, too, from 65 to 67 will change the future course of this program and enable us to say that we are taking a long-term as well as a short-term view; and enables us to accomplish the objectives that we were instructed to accomplish which is to preserve and protect Medicare. If you want to have universal health insurance as the objective, I am for that. I would love to change the eligibility under law saying if you are American, or a legal resident, you are in. But I can't keep Medicare, Medicaid, VA, and income tax deduction all sitting out there. This establishes I believe a basis for us to be able to say that for the long-term Medicare is a solvent program, and it is eminently fair. As the Senator from Louisiana pointed out, in 1965 the life expectancy for men was 67; for women it was 76; today it is 73 for men, and it is 80 for women. It is going to be even greater. We are enabling people to live longer and longer as the consequences have changed in behavior and with changes in health care technology. And, as a result, the Medicare Program as well needs to be adjusted. For those who have come expressing the concern for people not being able to get health care from 65 to 67, that problem exists today from 62 to 65 and sometimes even earlier. We have in this law a commission and there is language in the law as well to recommend strongly to this commission to consider allowing people to buy into Medicare. There is plenty of time for us to get that done. For Americans that are listening to this debate, if you are 65--if you are 64 today, your eligibility age is 65. If you are 63, your eligibility age is 65. If you are 62, your eligibility age is 65. If you are 61, it is 65. If you are 60, it is still 65, all the way down to 59. If you are 59 years of age and you are listening to this debate, please don't fall into the trap of presuming that all of a sudden your eligibility age is going to go to 67. It is still 65. If you are 58, it goes to 65 years and 2 months. The Senator from Iowa and the Senator from Louisiana engaged in a colloquy earlier. This thing does not fully phase in until the year 2024 or 2025. Mr. President, I have had many people come up to me and ask, many people call and ask, why is this necessary? Well, I have a fact. I have a very difficult fact I have to deal with. Again, the objective here is to preserve and protect Medicare. That is the idea. This law has lots of great provisions to move to market and get more competition, lots of terrific provisions in it that I think will enable us to seek customers and consumers who like Medicare more than they do as a result of choice, great cost controls in here, some courageous efforts on disproportionate share in this bill. There are lots of good things in the bill. But the fact out there in the future that all of us need to accommodate and think about as we decide how we are going to vote on this amendment is that from the year 2010 to the year 2030--that is 20 years--the baby boomers retire. You can't change that number. The 76 or 77 million of them that will retire, they will become eligible for Medicare in that 20-year time period. We are going to have an increase in the number of Americans who are in the work force of 5 million people, and the number of retirees will increase 22 million over that period of time. That is a fact, Mr. President. I may wish it wasn't so. I may wish it was a different number, but that is the number. Unless you are prepared to come down here and argue for a tax increase or some other change, you have got to move the eligibility age in order to be able to preserve and protect Medicare out in the future. It is an imminently fair thing to do given what has happened with life expectancy. If we were putting Medicare into law today, I don't believe we would put this program, given the costs of the program, in place at age 65. This does not affect Americans immediately. It is phased in. It gives people a chance to plan. Those who argue that it doesn't have a budget impact and use that as a reason not to support this provision are wrong. It is precisely because we are phasing it in, that it produces long-term savings, that they should support it. We are giving people a chance to plan. We are saying we are going to adjust the law in order to be able to account for this change out in the future. I hope that my colleagues will resist the political temptation to cast an easy vote and will enable this provision to remain in this law. It is one of the most significant long-term changes that we make in Medicare. And whether you are a Republican or whether you are a Democrat, you ought to be standing on this floor saying I want to be remembered out there in the future for casting a vote that did something good. ``No'' on the motion to strike this provision is the courageous position. Mr. President, I yield the floor.